Haydn 0 Posted February 23, 2002 Hi , I am building another sys and It has been my experience in the past that has led me to consider the harddrive atrib to my sys more thoughtfully . My delema is would 2 -75,000rpm- Harddrives on a Promise Fasttrak 133 raid0 controler be Faster then 1 -10,000rpm- Harddrive ata 133 ? Share this post Link to post
thewizard75 0 Posted February 23, 2002 I assume you mean a choice between two 7,200 RPM drives in RAID 0 configuration vs. 1 10,000 RPM drive. Many factors affect hard drive performance, and what is reasonably required. For serious video editing or other large dataset applications, the striped drives (2 in RAID 0) would likely be the best candidate (best throughput). However, the latency will likely be higher than with a single 10,000 RPM drive. As such, if your need is very dependent on how fast (relatively) small pieces of data can be read from the disk, the 10,000 RPM drive is the better choice. If you need to read a large amount of data to/from the disk, the RAID 0 pair is probably better. Note that in a RAID 0 configuration, if one HDD fails, you lose all of the data, so data is slightly less reliable there. If I were building a machine today, I would go with a single 10,000 RPM hdd, but again this depends on your specific application. Share this post Link to post
BladeRunner 0 Posted February 24, 2002 I'm sorry, you've seen a 10,000rpm HD that isn't SCSI where? Share this post Link to post
Brian Frank 0 Posted February 24, 2002 Right. SCSI RPMs: 7200, 10000, 15000. IDE RPMs: 5400, 7200. Economically, it's cheaper to go RAID 0 with the two IDE drives. If you're more into speed than space, a SCSI 10k or 15k RPM drive would be sweet. ATA133 is pointless, so don't expect anything spectacular from them. Also, Maxtor drives don't do that well in RAID 0. I've also been reading about an 80GB IDE drive from Western Digital with a huge 8meg cache! 8) You might wanna consider that too, as it's supposedly as fast as other drives with 2MB cache in RAID 0. Just my $0.02 Share this post Link to post
Haydn 0 Posted February 24, 2002 Do you have a link too that HD ? I cannot find it anywhere maybe I am just blind ... Share this post Link to post
Brian Frank 0 Posted February 25, 2002 It's a special edition one, so I'll have to look. Share this post Link to post
Brian Frank 0 Posted February 25, 2002 Hmmm...well it looks like they're not making the 80gig anymore, but they do have 100 &120GB special editions with 8meg caches. Link: http://www.westerndigital.com/products/Products.asp?DriveID=27 Share this post Link to post
clutch 1 Posted February 25, 2002 I have both the 100GB and the 120GB, and they haul a$$. Share this post Link to post
Palos 0 Posted February 26, 2002 I just saw an IBM SCSI @ 15k RPM...access time was 2ms, hahaaaa Share this post Link to post
Guest Posted February 28, 2002 Quote: I just saw an IBM SCSI @ 15k RPM...access time was 2ms, hahaaaa That's a load of crap. It's the IBM UltraStar 36Z15 and it only has an access time of 3.4ms. If you don't believe me, here's the link: http://www.storage.ibm.com/hdd/ultra/ul36z15.htm My Seagate Cheetah X15-36LP is still better. It's got 3.0ms access time. http://www.seagate.com/support/disc/specs/scsi/st318452lw.html Share this post Link to post
